Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 11-26-2002, 12:56 AM

Hawkingfan:

Quote:

Also, much has been made of the genetic problems that would arise from the interbreeding of Noah's family. I'm not an expert in genetics, so help me out: wouldn't these defects and retardations just be a possibility, depending on the way the genetic dice roll? Like if something is a recessive trait (which it would have to be or Noah et al. would already have it) then two of the clan interbreeding would have a 25% chance of passing on the disease. THis is why there was a HIGHER incidence of hemophilia in royal families who were trying to keep the bloodlines pure, but not all of them had it. This would mean it would not be impossible for Noah's family to reproduce, just highly unlikely. I could be completely wrong here, so correct as needed.

Correct. However...

If Noah's family carried a complete set of recessive genes for every disorder we know of, that's a 25% chance for hemophilia, a 25% chance for sickle-cell anemia (assuming that works the same way), and so on. In other words, a 99.99...% chance that each kid would inherit something unpleasant.

...Unless Noah's family were entirely free of genetic disorders. If so, incest would be safe, but subsequent rapid hyper-evolution is needed to create both the genetic disorders and the range of healthy variation in modern humans. Hence the fundie argument that "sin" is highly mutagenic. But they keep forgetting to explain why, in these "morally degenerate" times, the mutation rate has dropped to a tiny fraction of what it must have been in the past for this scenario to work.

Oolon Colluphid · 11-26-2002, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553:


Please show Frivolous some common courtesy please. I have not seen him be rude and he IS entitled to his opinion.

Of course. But it is a matter of record above, and therefore a mere statement of fact, that his 'arguments' are indeed lame. I thought that Answerer was being quite nice and courteous about it.

DT

Answerer · 11-26-2002, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sojourner553:


Please show Frivolous some common courtesy please. I have not seen him be rude and he IS entitled to his opinion.

I think he hasn't been exposed to much of this.
You can hit on his ideas -- but I will stand up for him if you try and trash him personally for his honest beliefs.

As Voltaire once was summarized:

"I may disagree with every word you say, but I will fight to the death your right to say it."

Sojourner

P.S. I composed this before I saw Maverick's response above. ' glad I was not the only one with the same reaction.

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

Well pal, obviously, lame is certainly not a personal insult, lame only mean talking crap. So how is this a personal insult? I, personally, feel that you and a few others are too overreacting. Please take note of this if you don't wish to get yourself into trouble next time.

Maverick · 11-26-2002, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Answerer:

Please take note of this if you don't wish to get yourself into trouble next time.

And if you (and others) wish to avoid trouble next time you will attack the arguments, not the person.

Quote:

Frivolous, you are absolutely lame.

I don't see how this can be anything other than a personal insult. The non-personal version would be "your arguements are absolutely lame".

Regardless, this is not the Rants, Raves, and Preaching forum. I expect a little higher level of civility from everyone. Frivious has mentioned in other forums that he is goading people for his personal enjoyment. I have little patience for this either.

Let's keep the posts at least semi-serious and semi-civil.

Maverick - BC&A Moderator

ApostateAbe · 11-26-2002, 08:13 AM

I, personally, think that one-line putdowns are wasteful. I, personally, don't want to squander Frivolous's rare courage and curiosity by forcing him to combat needless attacks. If his arguments are "lame", then the only way to show it is through the sacred methods of reason.

"If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." --Elbert V. Hubbard

Set an example please.

thebeave · 11-26-2002, 09:33 AM

I like how Friovolous is quick to question a long used and verified technique like carbon dating as possibly flawed and unreliable, but is quick to speculate that the ark had diving boards for penguins and trek-friendly terrain for animals getting to and from Austraulia. Can you say?: <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Neophyte · 11-26-2002, 09:54 AM

kctan · 11-26-2002, 01:18 PM

Who's here claiming something false about chinese history ?

Show me which are the false part please. I'll try my best to provide you with the truth.

Sojourner553 · 11-26-2002, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Biff the unclean:
I think that's
"but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
Though it does sound more French if you leave the "for" out

I was typing fast...

Although you realize Voltaire never said this phrase exactly. Some later editor paraphrased Voltaire's position with the famous line above.

Sojourner

The Admiral · 11-26-2002, 05:04 PM

I think he actually said," I disagree with what you say, and I will kick the shit out of you if you say it again".

The Admiral

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-26-2002, 08:13 AM	#65
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	I, personally, think that one-line putdowns are wasteful. I, personally, don't want to squander Frivolous's rare courage and curiosity by forcing him to combat needless attacks. If his arguments are "lame", then the only way to show it is through the sacred methods of reason. "If you can't answer a man's argument, all is not lost; you can still call him vile names." --Elbert V. Hubbard Set an example please.

11-26-2002, 09:33 AM	#66
thebeave Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Silicon Valley, CA Posts: 4,183	I like how Friovolous is quick to question a long used and verified technique like carbon dating as possibly flawed and unreliable, but is quick to speculate that the ark had diving boards for penguins and trek-friendly terrain for animals getting to and from Austraulia. Can you say?: <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

11-26-2002, 09:54 AM	#67
Neophyte Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: CA, USA Posts: 38

11-26-2002, 01:18 PM	#68
kctan Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Heaven, just assasinated god Posts: 578	Who's here claiming something false about chinese history ? Show me which are the false part please. I'll try my best to provide you with the truth.

11-26-2002, 05:04 PM	#70
The Admiral Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Racine, Wi. USA Posts: 768	I think he actually said," I disagree with what you say, and I will kick the shit out of you if you say it again". The Admiral

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.